One of the negative results of the tenured leftist radicals’ influence in academia has been political correctness–the aggressive advocacy of leftist ideology and the personal demeaning of those who disagree. Sometimes faculty members and students find that being demeaned by leftist professors and administrators is the least of their problem. I personally know two professors who were fired for attacking politically correct ideology. Both found other positions, one won a lawsuit against the school that fired him, but both are more hesitant to speak up against leftist positions, which is precisely what the radicals in academia want. At Vanderbilt University, Christian student groups are banned that do not allow those who disagree with the theological and moral teachings of traditional Christianity. This communicates the idea that traditional Christian views are not welcome in the public square of academia. When traditionalists are attacked, no rational arguments are given; rather, there are a plethora of personal attacks on those who oppose the leftist agenda, often vicious and using foul language. Such attacks are intentional and are an attempt to intimidate.

The most divisive moral issues in American society–the morality of procured abortion, active euthanasia, physician assisted suicide, the ethics of sexuality, including homosexuality, etc., are closely tied to specific world views. For example, the battle over the moral rightness of homosexuality is, to a significant extent, a battle between those who accept the malleability of human nature vs. those who believe in a stable human nature. This is not the only world view issue in this debate, but it is important, and a debate over different views on human nature and world views should be an important part of learning in academia. Instead, a new orthodoxy, more rigid than the most rabid of Christian fundamentalists, has invaded academia with speech codes, attacks on traditional Christians, dismissed students, fired faculty, and a shutting down of freedom of speech and free debate. Academia, the institution that should be at the heart of free debate that is essential for an educated human being, has become the New Inquisition, excommunicating all who disagree with a radical leftist agenda. Some schools have become more open since political correctness was identified, but traditionalists generally have a harder time in academia–that is bearable as long as open discussion of world view issues, including moral issues, is allowed to continue. Smaller schools that have not faced political correctness in the past, perhaps with some faculty and administrators falsely believing that they are being the wave of the future, may push for shutting down world view debates “to be like the bigger schools.” As radical faculty are hired who are loud, pushy, and intimidating, most faculty and administrators will give in to shut them up even if such cowardliness corrupts education. I have known liberal Democratic faculty who strongly oppose political correctness–hopefully the true liberals can join with conservatives in opening the university up to an open, frank discussion of world views. The faculty will learn more–and so will the students.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Writing for Forbes Magazine, climate change alarmist Steve Zwick calls for skeptics of man-made global warming to be tracked, hunted down and have their homes burned to the ground, yet another shocking illustration of how eco-fascism is rife within the environmentalist lobby. –Paul Joseph Watson

Presumably the above is protected speech! However, it seems the sort of thing that does not merit First Amendment protection. On the other hand we can imagine speech that ought to be protected which is not. If someone wishes to say that homosexuality violates God’s law but does not recommend attacking or harming the persons then that should be protected. The same with abortion. Even someone who claims that Jews are the cause of financial troubles in the world should have that right. Or someone who wants to claim the Holocaust is the product of Zionist imagination and ambitions. The key is not encouraging the harm of the persons or their property or their legal rights. Exceptions might occur temporarily when a situation is really explosive and volatile.
What is especially striking and puzzling is the fact that so called brilliant men like Alan Dershowitz, professor of law at Harvard, go out of their way to harm other professors and have no problem slandering, libeling and making violent remarks. This might be understandable if he drove a truck and drank a lot beer and was a great fan of boxing and football. While the latter individual might be willing to adopt a new point of view if someone approached him genuinely, Dershowitz probably wouldn’t alter his ways even with water boarding!!
The answer to the puzzle though is rather simple. While he has intellectual talent his feelings, his affective side, or using Jungian language, his anima, is still very primitive– probably more so than our truck driver’s.
We expect, and at one time it was the case, professors to be not just mentally advanced but also to be cultured. Of course that was at a time when administrators were all but invisible and did not take huge salaries. Unfortunately the ’60’s changed all that. We could say that the Vietnam Conflict undermined authority as it was perceived by so many to be corrupted. So out went the baby with the bath the water.
I live near a university town but avoid it as the atmosphere is not pleasant. The villains in my opinion are several: scientism, excessive valuation of money and things, sexual promiscuity and a general interest in violating norms. Regarding sexual promiscuity I mean simply sex without genuine love. I agree with the older psychologies that lust can lead to mental derangement. Another problem area is the psychiatric medication. These drugs are harmful. The epidemic of mania is now being traced to their use as well as other physical problems. Giving young people these drugs for depression is a serious mistake. People are depressed because of how they live and have lived. Changing their lives is the solution–not playing with brain chemistry.
Finally, my basic conclusion is that the condition of women in a society is the best indicator of the health of the society, In America women are treated horribly. They have been driven out of the homes; liberated to pretend they are men. When there is domestic trouble they often get arrested as they tend to make more noise–this information from a psychotherapist in charge of a country’s women shelters. Groped at airports and strip searched for no good reasons. Tasered and beaten by police. Whether they are pregnant or not makes no difference. And I guess placed in combat by the military. Until women are again treated properly and respected simply because they are women even if they seem unpleasant at the time, our society will sink further and further down. Oh, and I should mention gotten pregnant and then introduced to abortion!!
It is all tied together and the loudest voices are crying for the worst barbarianism.

One of the problems with colleges and universities was the vast influx of federal money after World War II. Large research grants for the sciences left out the humanities, who wanted to get their own grants–so humanities scholars tried to say something “new” in order to get research money, or at a more basic level, to get tenure. When I was a small child in the 1960s, I imagined the university as an intellectual community–I remember the GE College Bowl on TV on Sunday afternoons. That was my view of higher education–until I entered college in 1980 and learned what it was really like–immature children with no love for learning who only cared about rebelling against parental norms. I did not experience PC until I was at Vanderbilt–the Divinity School had a few sane faculty, but the majority were stark raving mad and intolerant. That was a real shock–having grown up Fundamentalist, I easily recognized the mindset, but it was coming from the opposite side of the ideological spectrum. I don’t regret my education–I learned what I needed to learn to do further research, to learn on my own, and to realize how little I do know–and the latter is the best lesson of all.

“When traditionalists are attacked, no rational arguments are given; rather, there are a plethora of personal attacks on those who oppose the leftist agenda, often vicious and using foul language.” Two points: (1) certainly, this kind of assault isn’t restricted to leftist ideologues and (2) why not just ignore such irrational attacks?

The irrational attacks spread well beyond “leftists.” I have heard numerous traditionalists employ all kinds of fallacies to undermine the view with which they disagree.

My guess is that by “no rational arguments are given” one could substitute “I disagree vehemently.” I don’t believe that is what is going on here with your post, but I am always suspect of bloggers and political pundits who uses such terms without defining them adequately.

Ultimately, I would think that it’s best to ignore the ideologues because they have no reasonable argument supporting any conclusion.

The problem is that those ideologues have gotten some faculty members fired, two of whom I know personally. If their influence were benign, I wouldn’t care and I would agree, let them be ideologues and go their happy ways. There are conservative ideologues–neoconservatives often accuse paleoconservatives, without reason, of being antisemetic, and extreme Fundamentalist Christians can close down academic debate, too. De facto in class I do ignore ideologues–I pretty much say what I think and the students know they are free to disagree–they are graded on the quality of their arguments, not the particular position they defend, as I’m sure you know.

Yes, I am all too familiar with ideologically motivated students, and, yes, like you, I ignore them and their vitriolic diatribes. With respect to the problem of getting faculty members fired, I have — on my own blog — dedicated some time to a discussion of firing faculty because of their personal (political and social) views (See my entries on Ward Churchill).

Ignoring faculty member sentiment is far more difficult because they probably (maybe even almost always) hold administrative positions of power. Holding positions of power enable them either to fire or to silence those whose positions disagree with their own.

I believe that your assault upon leftist ideologues is derived from an underlying assumption that deserves further consideration. The assumption seems to be that: people shouldn’t dismiss a view that runs contrary to their own. It strikes me that the leftist ideologues do just that. By doing that, they (i) disenfranchise a significant less vocal proportion of the professoriate and (ii) retard academic freedom.

But what do you say to that leftist ideologue who believes that some neoconservatives don’t uphold the very position that someone like you defend, on their behalf? For example, in Mississippi, there was some debate leading up to a vote on what was called “amendment 26”. The amendment to the state constitution called for life to begin at conception. When socially liberal advocates argued that this was an abridgment of women’s right, neoconservatives responded with ad hominem attacks rather than further dialogue. I believe in situations like this one the assumption that people shouldn’t dismiss contrary views is dismissed. Rational argumentation and continued dialogue may be more beneficial than just digging in one’s heels.

Nevertheless, I believe it’s important we hear both sides of the debate — whether we disagree or agree with one side. Arguments are not won or lost by persuading the masses but by a continued search for the truth. And that search will not benefit from the rantings of ideologues on either side of the social divide. I think you agree with me here, though our more particular beliefs may part ways on occasion.

John BurnsApr 21, 2012 @ 19:02:15

gratiaetnatura—lately the print on your blog in the comments area is very small and hard to read. Is this my computer or did the blog go through a change a few weeks ago. The way it is used to be was just fine. But the change is a bit difficult to cope with.

since when was it assumed that Christian views were necessarily ‘right’?
It seems to me that left and right have drawn their line by determining what is moral to them. To the right what is moral are issues of sexuality and reproduction. To the left what is moral are issues of poverty and freedom of person.
Jesus ate with prostitutes and cared for the poor. Tell me, based on that observation who ought we to believe is actually right?

Why would you assume I oppose the poor or those caught in sin–we’re all in the same boat in that respect since we all have flaws. The church has always encouraged “corporeal works of mercy” to the poor and to others in need. There is an issue of which strategy is best to help the poor–the Great Society has only increased dependence despite the well meaning people who put it into effect. As far as Christianity being true, I do not see how a group of disillusioned disciples mourning the death of their Master could suddenly change and be willing to die, claiming that Jesus was raised from the dead. Now one could argue cognitive dissonance, as skeptics do, and there is always faith involved in accepting any religion. If I did not believe Christianity to be true, I wouldn’t waste my time going to church and trying, but too often failing, to live a good life.